America: This time, it’s personal

posted at 7:45 pm on July 9, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

I’m trying to get a book finished, and it isn’t helping to keep stopping to write blog posts. But this point is worth making.

I believe the Obama campaign is wasting its time with attacks on Mitt Romney. That doesn’t mean Team Obama will wise up; it has only a few tricks in its bag, and it deploys them over and over. But it does mean that the public is inured to the Obama shtick. There’s no there there, and increasingly, the people know it.

There’s something else about this election that tends to rob the trademark Obama demagoguery of its effect. A growing number of Americans perceive our nation to be at a turning point (or a precipice; choose your metaphor). If Romney were a more galvanizing candidate for conservative Republicans, there would be a greater tendency to associate him with the prospect of an American turn-around, on the order of the Reagan presidency.

But Romney is not the object of widespread enthusiasm. He comes across as a decent, accomplished man who wants to do the right thing, but he is perfectly comfortable with big government, and seems to have no philosophical underpinnings: certainly not conservative ones – constitutionalism, limited government, originalist philosophy – nor any of the kind that help meaningful policies weather the storms of political opposition.

Throughout the very competitive primary season, millions of voters were hoping intensely for someone else. Yet Romney didn’t tack to the right much during the primary season, and his “inevitability” has meant that he sees little reason to do so in the general campaign. He won’t be doing heavy lifting for small-government conservatism in the Oval Office.

His difference with Obama is more profound than merely a set of disputes over the precise content of big-government policy. Romney comes across as having a better character. He’s not steeped in cronyism, he doesn’t want to “Alinsky” his opponents – or Alinsky the middle class, for that matter – and he generally respects the people and the idea of their private property. Romney in the Oval Office would not be a predator, ideological or otherwise. But his idea of the proper role and scope of government is much closer to that of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and all the Democratic presidential candidates since 1964 – including, ultimately, Barack Obama – than that of Ronald Reagan. Romney’s a Massachusetts pol; a Republican in Massachusetts would be a Democrat in a good 35 of the other states.

Reagan, by contrast, was a defining leader, even philosopher, of the limited-government conservative movement. He did, in fact, do the heavy lifting for conservatism in Washington, DC. He didn’t get everything he wanted, and he didn’t satisfy conservatives on every point. But he was the person leading the charge, acting on a set of philosophical premises about the proper relationship of government to the people. His premises were opposed in important ways to the assumptions of the New Deal and the Great Society. Reagan, when he went to Washington, acted on the understanding that he had a mandate to literally reverse the encroachments of government on the people’s lives.

Conservatives in 2012 understand clearly that Mitt Romney will not do this. He has never said he will, and he has never spoken in philosophical terms that suggest he might. Electing Romney isn’t electing a champion of the American political idea. It’s a tactical move to get Obama out of office.

The period of the Obama tenure, and now the 2012 election, are forcing Americans to reconsider, in a way I’m not sure we have for a good 200 years, what the vote means, and what politics means to our lives. Since 1792, the sense has gradually crept upon us that when we elect a president, we are electing our collective future. That sense took a giant leap forward with the FDR presidency, and frankly, it took another one when Reagan entered office.

Some of the most important (although not necessarily good) legislation in the 20th century was actually passed under other presidents, like Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. But FDR and Reagan were seen by their respective constituencies, in a way none of the other presidents in the last century was, as leaders who could steer our course decisively by using the power of the executive. An idea has spread in the public consciousness that electing a president is tantamount to electing a savior.

The point here is not that it doesn’t matter who the president is; the point is that in sending saviors to Washington, the people have effectively minimized and relinquished their own role in the stewardship of America. We have come to think of our main obligation as electing a president, who will then do all the important work while Congress roils around being, incorrigibly, Congress: annoying, posturing, legislatively incontinent.

The Founding Fathers didn’t see it that way – and indeed, it hasn’t turned out to be a very good idea. Now the political turning point in 2012 rests squarely with the people. There is no “champion” – no savior – running for president in either party. It’s down to us now.

What is our character? Can we see through demagoguery and even outright lies? Do we acknowledge our responsibility for a government that today sees us alternately as lab rats and pack mules, and is currently spending our great-great-grandchildren’s earnings? Are we willing to take responsibility for ourselves and our families? Are we willing to help those in need ourselves, rather than handing the government an open-ended charter to remake us all?

What is our view of government? What is government supposed to do? What does it mean to elect someone to public office? What are our responsibilities for self-government? How well do we understand the competing philosophical justifications for small government and big? What do we really think of them?

I see two ways for conservatives to view the vote in November. One involves a pragmatic view of government as something to be handled, as much as possible, through prudent tactics. This view emphasizes method and calculation over philosophy. The other involves a view of government that makes the choice of president a form of positive affirmation of what we believe in. With this view, philosophy is paramount; if philosophical sympathy is absent in the leading candidate(s), no mere method of politics is a way of correcting the deficiency.

Neither perspective stands alone. In most election years, campaigning entails a combination of these perspectives, and a candidate is chosen who seems to marry them as effectively as possible for electoral politics. In 2012, however, conservatives simply can’t make of Romney a “what we believe in” choice. He is instead a “prudent tactics” choice: a placeholder who will basically not be Obama for the next four years.

The only strategically significant point of having a placeholder is so that the people themselves can regroup. Romney cannot be a savior, and in policy terms, he is not the answer to our problems. In the foreseeable future, we have to do the heavy lifting.

What I would like to suggest is that it has been unrealistic all along for American voters to imagine that we can find, every four years, a political avatar of all our hopes and dreams. That is an unrealistic view of politics, and a dangerous view of the role government should play in our lives. It is essentially the role defined by the left for its favorite sons.

It is also unrealistic to suppose that we can delegate to government, or to a particular president, the responsibility of standing up to bad ideas and trends in our society. We ourselves have to stand up to them, in school board meetings and local zoning hearings, in state legislatures and the House of Representatives. We have to stand up to them in our family lives and our personal lives, our lives as citizens, employers, employees, volunteers, philanthropists, and believers.

Even on the political right, we have come to assign government and particular politicians too large a role in correcting the problems around us. Most of us believe in “government” too much now; instead of believing in the smallness of government and the benefits of our own liberty, too many of us have been induced to simply believe in the American government itself, whatever its size.

Our Founders were profoundly – and properly – skeptical of government. They stated repeatedly that their reliance was ultimately on the good sense and character of the people. In 2012, it’s all about the people: who we are and the clarity with which we see our predicament and our options.

That’s one of the biggest reasons why there is so little resonance with our spirits in this year’s election campaign. The Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney are just noise in this season, but even Romney’s proclamations don’t matter all that much. In 2012, the governing dynamic is the American people talking to ourselves, deciding who we really are and what we really believe. Romney isn’t, at any point, going to intrude on that dialogue. In an important sense, Obama is irrelevant to it, except as an example of the extremes to which our century-long practice of seeking saviors can take us.

The dialogue will continue for years after November 2012. The dialogue is what matters, and if a sleeping giant is awakening, it will take some time for it to educate itself. The need for the people to educate and improve ourselves, as self-governing citizens, is actually a good thing, in my view. If we had another Reagan to elect this fall, we would remain passive, waiting for the president to try to do what only we can do. It is good for the people to have to step up to our responsibilities, which start with character and knowledge.

This year, meanwhile, the great resolution we are working toward isn’t so much Democrat or Republican, Obama or Romney; this year, it’s America – liberty, self-government, responsibility – and us.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

I’m only suggesting that each President be analyzed on their own merits. Prejudging Romney because prior to the Office he hasn’t shown some sort of ballet-flair conservatism, so to speak, is self-defeating.

Lourdes on July 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

That’s what you really meant to write, isn’t it? We’re supposed to trust Mitt Romney because of what he says he’ll do, right? Is that what you’re getting at here?

I believe Romney loves this country, and his aim won’t be to destroy it. The extent to which he has the political philosophy or moxie to move it from where it has been—even prior to Obama days—has yet to be seen.

Again, J. E. Dyer’s 4th paragraph sums it up for me:

He comes across as a decent, accomplished man who wants to do the right thing, but he is perfectly comfortable with big government, and seems to have no philosophical underpinnings: certainly not conservative ones – constitutionalism, limited government, originalist philosophy – nor any of the kind that help meaningful policies weather the storms of political opposition.

It’s enough I’m going to vote for him. Don’t expect me to suddenly decide he’s a tiger because he says he is.

J.E. Dyer misses the point … I guess his point is … “Vote for Willard because he’s dull and scared and he’ll need you to prod him in the right direction like the Founders intended — YAY TEAM!!”

What about just electing a guy with the balls to reform entitlements and balance the budget?

This guy ain’t him – and he never will be. And you’ll be sorry if he’s elected because he’ll suck every bit of the remaining credibility out of the American Conservative Movement.

Yay Team! ???

HondaV65 on July 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I think you’re kind of missing the point, Honda. We shouldn’t put our trust in politicians. If we’re going to reform the system, we need to do it from the bottom up. Not the top down.

A good start would be as many states as possible floating nullification resolutions in their respective state-level legislatures. I’m painfully aware they wouldn’t pass in all of them, but they don’t need to. It puts the power of judicial review right back where it belongs — in the hands of the states.

And I know people who voted for Reagan the same way people will vote for Romney.

I happen to know one particular family who was damaged to the tune of 6 figures by a swipe of a pen by Reagan and still voted for him a second time because they would not vote for Mondale. People vote when it is the best for the country when they know the facts.

In 2008, people voted on their enthusiasm for Obama. That just didn’t work out too well, did it?

Give people the facts that they need . . . they will do what is best for the country. Too much rah-rah on both sides went into the 2008 election. What a mess that was!

Did either of you vote in the 1980 election?

Voter from WA State on July 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

In 1980 people voted on their enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan. That worked out reasonably well. Romney’s lack of any perceivable personality isn’t much of a selling point. Its a wonder Bob Dole or Dukakis didn’t win according to you guys.

Nice piece, but you’re preaching to the choir. Most of us here don’t idolize Romney, don’t believe he’s a savior and will vote for him to get rid of Obama, to hopefully get rid of the ObamascareTAX and to take back conservative control of the WH. Romney’s in for damage control, to stop the bleeding as others have said. It’s going to take several terms and presidents and maybe a decade or two to clean out both houses of Congress toward righting this country. It’s time for a lot of these old coots along with the ethically’n’morally challenged–on both sides–to go. I just hope that Romney and the Republicans can win enough people over in November to get us back on track.

Romney is scared?? When has he ever shown fear?? He certainly showed no fear when he went after his opponents during the primary. Why should he wimp out now? Just because he hasn’t gone for the throat as of today doesn’t mean it isn’t in his arsenal.

Reagan was voted in because of huge distrust of the policies of Jimmy Carter. Iranian Hostages were going on a year. Interest rates were 21%. Inflation was through the roof. Long gas lines. Things were going from bad to worse. People voted for Reagan to get rid of Jimmy Carter.

People will vote for Romney to get rid of Obama. Romney has said that he will get rid of ObamaTax. That alone will help spur business and hopefully get our economy back on course.

People will vote for Romney to get rid of Obama. Romney has said that he will get rid of ObamaTax. That alone will help spur business and hopefully get our economy back on course.

Voter from WA State on July 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Some people will vote for Romney to get rid of Obama. That does not mean that enough people will vote for Romney for him to defeat Obama. To assert that Romney will defeat Obama simply because Obama is so awful is not only argumentum ad nauseam, but it really is damning Romney with faint praise.

But Romney is not the object of widespread enthusiasm. He comes across as a decent, accomplished man who wants to do the right thing, but he is perfectly comfortable with big government, and seems to have no philosophical underpinnings: certainly not conservative ones – constitutionalism, limited government, originalist philosophy – nor any of the kind that help meaningful policies weather the storms of political opposition.

Yet you and your fellow “conservatives” will still pull the lever for him while denying that you’re the problem.

Boy we have alot of revisionist history regarding Reagan these days. Yes he was a great President one of the very best. However, he evolved into the great conservative that he became. For most of his life he was a Democrat and later a Big Union Leader.
People now remember Reagan the way that I remember living in New York City. I remember the good stuff. Great Theatre, Restaurants, 1986 World Series etc and tend to forget the Traffic Jams and two near muggings and one car stolen.

I believe Romney will become the same great President mostly due to his love of this great country of ours.

Half of the Republican Party precinct committeeman slots are vacant, on average, in every county in America. About one-third of the precincts nationwide have not even one Republican Party precinct committeeman.

In many counties in America, the elections department can’t fill up all of the poll worker slots — even the paid ones. And in many counties in America, there aren’t enough Republican precinct committeeman to be official poll watchers.

Fix that and you fix the outcome of the elections.

Go here if you want to learn the real solution. It’s rebuilding our Party apparatus from the precinct level on down.

Excellent points all. I’ve been reconsidering my own views of this matter lately. I’d been hoping for a conservative savior. It’s obviously not to be, and this, as you say, may be right. The Tea Party, after all, was entirely about our own recognitions of American principles and our own obligations as citizens. This is what Palin seemed to be saying herself. We cannot rely on five justices or one salvational leader, but take the long view of restoration.

rrpjr on July 9, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Yeah, it was very clear when she told Tea Partiers to start picking a party.

Thats nice… but some folks want results, not meaningless platitudes about hope and change from a talking head. Romney isn’t going to change a thing so there is nothing there of any substance. Sarah Palin isn’t ever going to be president, but that doesn’t make Romney something he isn’t.

Sadly, another writer with a mythical view of Reagan, and the schtick that Romney will never measure up to that mythical view. Oh, my!

No question. I am glad that Reagan beat Carter. I think Reagan did a lot of good things. His focus on National Security was much needed after Carter. His optimistic nature and his clear love of America were a needed tonic.

But, get real.

##Amnesty for illegal aliens. Yep, that’s right. We were told it would fix the problem forever.

##Government grew, even as Reagan declared repeatedly that it needed to shrink.

##The Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut were destroyed, and we ran with out tails between our legs. Our response to that bold attack on the U.S. plagued us right up until 9-11.

##Iran/Contra was a complete “cluster fxxx”. The White House looked like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

##His second term was mostly a story of lost opportunity. Of course he was old, and he had been shot–but he was the President.

I could research and provide more, but this is a preview from the top of my head.

It is dishonest and unfair to hold Romney to some fictitious standard, measured against a mythical memory of Reagan. I am sad that so many people who should stand by Romney in the battle against the Obama machine are so unreliable. There is no alternative. It is Romney, or it is Obama. Choose now.

First we have to stop Obama and to do that we must vote for Romney. We then need to systematically get rid of RINOs and establishment types like Boehner. It took the left decades to build this monstrosity and it will take the right just as long to break it down. There is no quick fix. Vote in as many good Tea Party conservatives as we can each election cycle and make sure they are making fundamental freedoms such as voter ID laws and immigration issues as priority one. America hangs in the balance but I know we can save her if we work hard enough.

I’m thinking you’ve got the revisionism problem. Reagan was the conservative keynote speaker at the GOP convention in 1964. His migration away from the Democratic party started almost 20 years earlier. In his stints as president of the Screen Actors Guild, he hardened his anti-communism and developed his antipathy toward union leaders who operated by exploiting their members. He literally led the charge against the subversion of the film industry by Soviet-backed communists. He named names before a Senate committee. In his work with GE Theater, which had him giving speeches at GE facilities all across America, he spoke on political topics so conservatively that the left in media and the entertainment industry tried to bring him down, threatening GE in the hope of getting Reagan fired.

Reagan ran for governor of California as a conservative Republican. That’s what was in his campaign literature and on his signs. In 1968, conservatives in the GOP tried to mount a short-lived challenge to Nixon, using Reagan’s name. Reagan became a popular spokesman for conservative national security policies, wiping the floor with Robert Kennedy in a televised debate in 1967. Reagan absolutely shredded an annoying, radical-left student questioner during that debate; although he and RFK were essentially defending the same policies, RFK didn’t come off looking like the guy who had done his homework. Reportedly, after that debate, he told his advisors to never, ever put him up agaisnt that SOB Reagan again. If you can find the video of the debate, it’s worth your time. Reagan kicked tail.

Reagan ran for the GOP nomination as the conservative alternative to incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, and he almost carried off the upset. Between 1976 and the launch of his campaign for 1980, he gave a weekly radio address in which he articulated the conservative position on domestic and security issues. The prep work he did for those addresses is captured in a couple of volumes in which his longhand addresses were reproduced. Reagan wrote out his own thoughts and supervised his own research. He was a genuine. committed conservative for more than a quarter century before he took office in January 1981. He didn’t have to learn anything about it, or change any of his positions after he took office. He was the one man who had been articulating those positions to create political unity among conservativbes since 1964.

For what it’s worth I have to say The Republican Elites know that the sure way to win an election is to go full on Reagan. I don’t think they want to be held to conservative ways ( most are not on board ) after winning the election. I mean how else do you explain the milktoast candidates they have run since? Bob Dole, GWB, John McCain, and why are they taking any advise from the likes of Carl Rove. 2010 seems to mean nothing to them. they sit back and take attach after attack, and say little or nothing. John McCain went so far as to say we had nothing to fear from Barack Obama DURING the campaign. Palin spoke up, what did they help do to her. Just once I would like to hear one of ours say as Reagan did, I’ll not shut up I paid for this microphone, or the great reaction Newt received after he put the questioer in his place. Fighting back works EVERY TIME it’s tried. Unfortunately the Elites don’t want to win that way.

One seems to forget that the Democratic party at that time was just slightly less conservative than they are today. How many fine conservatives came from the Dem party when it was obvious the direction they were headed. The Gipper spoke his mind, and it was all good. “MR. Gorbachev” tare down this wall” “It’s obvious that the dems don’t know as much as they thing they do” So many fine words and deeds, but now most in Washington (both sides) want to forget our glory days and win by a point or two, or 535 votes in Florida.

I don’t idolize Romney, but I’m a grownup. I understand fully the implications providing Obama wins the election. If I must vote to stop a negative then I will.

The facts are men like Reagan are not only exceptional, their rise is exceptional. It takes a very special man to collect friends, run for election, and then to take power, use it wisely, then move away from the stage gracefully. It takes an exceptional man to embody the spirit of a country, and talk to every man and woman as if they were the only ones in the room.

I’m a firm believer it takes a person, woman or man, who comes from humble roots, rises to the pinnicle of power, but never forgets where they came from that separates politicians from exceptional leaders.

The difficult thing is that in the modern age we’ve about choked off the possibility of such a person being able to rise without being vilified, or worse, ignored. We may have had the last Reagan for a generation or two, until someone good enough has the courage to weather the pace and challenge the system again.

It’s in-depth knowledge of Reagan’s career, Dante. The book I’m writing is about his policies as president.

If you have a premise that Reagan wasn’t a conservative, I suggest stating it and making a clear argument.

J.E. Dyer on July 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I’ve mentioned a few above. So how are you reconciling or excusing his non-conservative policies with his pre-1981 rhetoric? Or are you taking an honest, critical look at those policies and writing about them truthfully?

I’ve mentioned a few above. So how are you reconciling or excusing his non-conservative policies with his pre-1981 rhetoric? Or are you taking an honest, critical look at those policies and writing about them truthfully?

Dante on July 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

There is a wealth of information concerning Reagan’s conservative cred, including his own diaries. Please point not to a single isolated case where he was pragmatic but to a consistent, decades long track of a lifetime of non-conservative leanings and decisions.

There is a wealth of information concerning Reagan’s conservative cred, including his own diaries. Please point not to a single isolated case where he was pragmatic but to a consistent, decades long track of a lifetime of non-conservative leanings and decisions.

The people were too worried about their jobs, too busy, and too ‘tired of politics’ in 2008, enabling the RINO GOP and the MSM to nominate idiot McCain. So, we got the even bigger idiot Obama–the worst president in the history of the USA. Now, after 3.5 years, people are hurting and yet fully half of them are still so f*cking ignorant, disengaged, or otherwise foolish that they are considering Obumble as a viable choice for president.

Sure. Give him another four years, you dumbf*cks. The sleeping giant is awakening, is that the thesis of this piece? Our founding consciousness is beginning to be rekindled? Sorry, I don’t buy it. If Americans were anything but complete effing idiots, this president would never have been elected. Failing that test, if Americans were anything but complete effing idiots, this president would have been stymied by a congress purged of leftists/statists in 2010.

I’m not at all sanguine that even if Obumble is thrown out that America will care enough and be smart enough to put a halt to the corruption and corporatism that greases Washington DC. Torches & pitchforks, tar & feathers would be a good start. Short of some stretched necks the corrupticrats of both parties will find a way to keep the gravy train rolling.

I see “growing government, interventionism, amnesty, trading arms for hostages” in youtr list.

Growing government — please state your case on this. What do you mean by “growing government”? The Defense Department got a little bigger. What else?

Interventionism — you are saying it was unconservative for Reagan to, what? Liberate Grenada? I think the stationing of Marines in Lebanon was poorly thought out, and should not have been done. But I certainly disagree that it was unconservative to kick the Soviets out of Grenada, conduct a reprisal against Qadhafi, or escort merchant ships through the Persian Gulf and prevent the Iran-Iraq war from spilling outside of the region. Reagan was actually less “interventionist” than any other president since WWII except Carter — but I doubt you and I agree on the definition of “interventionist,” in any case.

Amnesty — this, I agree, was a bad policy. I consider it foolish to proclaim that Reagan wasn’t a conservative — he’s the only really conservative president we have had since Coolidge — because he made a bad compromise on illegal immigration. He didn’t have a trend of bad policy decisions; this one stands out. But it was, indeed, a bad policy.

Trading arms for hostages — the two most senior administration officials involved in Iran-Contra stated under oath that Reagan didn’t know about the program. This point has nothing to do with whether he was conservative or not.

I’m voting for Romney because he’ll make an excellent President, a manager, a “Chief Executive Officer” for a nation that sorely needs one. We don’t need another “savior” campaigner nor campaign nor false-idol as was Obama to the gullible and easily misled. I like about Romney that he’s got skills and not vanity and it’s skills our nation sorely needs now, not vanity.

Lourdes on July 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I hear what you are saying Lourdes..

And by the way, to others here, Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, he’s gone, so he can not be elected again. Get over it.. The biggest task we face right now is getting the con man out of the oval office.

Great post J.E.
2010 illustrated the power of the people to stop what they did not want in its tracks. I think most of the people who were trying to do that realized at the time we could only stop it until 2012, at which point we could get a new administration to undo the Obama damage. It would have been nice to get a Republican like Reagan, but to undo the Obama damage it will take more than winning the White House. It will take adding more Tea Party type leaders to Congress as well. That will have a more lasting effect on our country than having one person we want in the White House.

I trust Mitt Romney will gut ObamaCare, cut regulations, and make a limited attempt to get our national debt under control.

Why?

He has no choice. If he wants to get the economy back up and running he is going to have to do those things. If he does not the economy will do what it is doing now, the American people will continue to be unhappy, and Mitt can go back to the private sector after 4 years. Romney is not an ideologue like Obama, but instead is a typical American politician who basically does whatever the polls say he needs to do. He is sort of like Bill Clinton, just Clinton was better at expressing himself, at connecting with the middle class, and giving speeches. Romney pushed RomneyCare because that is what the people of a left wing state like Massachusetts wanted and he gave the mob what they wanted just like Clinton became a supporter of welfare reform and balanced budgets because that is what the people wanted.

What should concern conservatives more is not Romney, because he can be pushed into what conservatives want if the polls agree, but instead the Republican leaders in the house and senate. Those are the people we rely on to write laws, and create bills without turning the whole thing into spending inferno like the last time they went wild under Bush. I have less confidence that they can be pushed in the right direction and will need to be replaced.

All of you on here that try to give Romney creditability can save your breath. He’s a liberal. He IS just as bad as Obama and I’ll not have any part of it. He, nor Obama, will NEVER get my vote. And save your, “a vote for anyone but Romney is a wasted vote” nonsense. I will never buy into my vote being wasted when I vote for a man of character and conviction who follows the Constitution. How can a vote for integrity be wasted? I will be writing in Ron Paul. He was the ONLY conservative this time around. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional. I get so tired of all the talking heads (e.g. Limbaugh, Broken Record Hannity, Levin, Morrissey, et al.) trying to convince us how conservative Romney is or how, “well, he’s not exactly what we wanted but he’s better than Obama.” No he’s not!

I know, go ahead and tell me how his own words don’t matter, that was a long time ago. “He said he will change and we have to believe him because we have to get rid of Obama.”, I’ve heard them all. Now come on and bring all the racist newsletters, crazy uncle, Paulbot, Paulians that you want to. It still doesn’t change the fact that Romney is a liberal (and I don’t care that he’s a “nice guy with good values”, he doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution) and is the white version of Obama.

That’s about right. People are more interested in appearances than facts, at least they certainly are where Ryan is concerned.

Dante on July 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I meant that in a good way. I’m conservative and young (28). I have friends, a lot of friends, who aren’t that politically active and who aren’t that conservative who would literally crawl through glass for Ryan. I actually worry that he missed his chance by being too calculating.

Have you thought of the alternative to what that is? You really expect a conservative to say, “No some people should just be screwed.” You can’t cherry pick Romney and Obama saying similar things in different context and call them the same. Doing that makes you as bad as a liberal who doesn’t want to actually engage. We all want universal coverage, one group wants it to be powered by choice and the free market, the other big government. Those are big differences. We all want pre-existing conditions to be covered. One group supports high-risk pools, the other big government. Anyone can cherry pick lines.

I for one would like to see Dante take one issue and expound on how/why Reagan was not a conservative in his own words, not some link to someone else’s words. Put up Dante and defend your assertion.

AH_C on July 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Why reinvent the wheel? I stated above that government grew under Reagan, which is absolutely antithetical to all of his limited government rhetoric. I made the statement, and provided a link that explained it further with numerous examples. I’m not going to hold your hand through the process.

We all want universal coverage, one group wants it to be powered by choice and the free market, the other big government. Those are big differences. We all want pre-existing conditions to be covered. One group supports high-risk pools, the other big government. Anyone can cherry pick lines.

cpaulus on July 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

You’re young, you still have plenty of time to get straight, and the sooner you realize that the Republicans and Democrats are the same party, the better. There isn’t anything about the Republican Party that wants a free market. And we do not all want universal coverage, and we do not all want pre-existing conditions to be covered. You are arguing for government intervention in the marketplace whereas the conservative position would be for government to be out of the marketplace altogether. You are not arguing for a free market; you are arguing for one more aligned with a fascist economy.

I strongly urge you to click my name, follow the link, as well as read as much as you can at mises.org

You’re young, you still have plenty of time to get straight, and the sooner you realize that the Republicans and Democrats are the same party, the better. There isn’t anything about the Republican Party that wants a free market. And we do not all want universal coverage, and we do not all want pre-existing conditions to be covered. You are arguing for government intervention in the marketplace whereas the conservative position would be for government to be out of the marketplace altogether. You are not arguing for a free market; you are arguing for one more aligned with a fascist economy.

I strongly urge you to click my name, follow the link, as well as read as much as you can at mises.org

Dante on July 10, 2012 at 12:37 AM

I’m actually with you on that. But, where I disagree with you is in the idea that the parties are the same. They really aren’t. I’m a historian by trade, so I tend to look at the big picture (maybe a little too much). Mitt Romney to me is the last of a dying breed of Republican that accepts the liberal premise. We’re going through a transition as a nation, this happened in the 1930s, 1860, 1830s, 1800. Romney isn’t that bad of a transition to the Ryans, West, Rands, etc (Yes I know those guys are different, but on a larger level they’re not). I actually think he sees what’s happening and is trying to figure out what to do, which is why he’s not responding so quickly.

Maybe I’m wishcasting on Romney, but I don’t think so. He’s the type of guy who sees things before others do, that’s why he founded a company as successful as Bain. He’s been using Ryan’s talking points for awhile now. The big transition you’re talking about is going to take time. It took a long time to get here, it’s going to take some time to get back.

I lived in MA for many years, but still don’t quite know about
catching that disease.

Ever wonder what would ‘really’ become of shutting down handouts for
reassessment? I am inclined to believe that the ‘gimmies’, most of them,
would get a clue, posthaste. Soon pride returns, then off to the rest of
their productive lives.

I guess that’s fair, though it’s hard to not say that his policies set the precedence for Clinton (or Newt) to shrink the size of government in the 90s. I do agree that Reagan could have been better, but I tend to think of him as a forerunner, articulating a vision that hadn’t been given its due for nearly 50 years and succeeding in showing the country that there is a better way than New Deal Liberalism.

Despite the frequent overreaching by Obama on EOs and rule changes and regulatory findings that directly contradict statutory authority, the President isn’t really in charge of how much money we spend. His only real tool in budget negotiations is the threat of a veto. Even that is only as real as the perception of his willingness to shut down the government.

So if a Republican Congress enacts the sort of budget we NEED to have to get our fiscal ship in order, Romney will sign it and implement it. And to the extent it involves reducing government and getting more efficient, he is just the guy for the job. That’s what he does.

Dante, the greatest Conservative mind to ever inhabit the earth, teach us o great master. But first at some point could you answer a simple question. No didn’t think you could, knower of all, funny though. Actually just pathetic.

I for one would like to see Dante take one issue and expound on how/why Reagan was not a conservative in his own words, not some link to someone else’s words. Put up Dante and defend your assertion.

AH_C on July 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I wouldn’t bother. When Dante says Reagan was not conservative, he defines it differently than the rest of us.

To Dante, the Cold War was just pointless interventionism. Since Reagan unquestionably raised government spending on defense, even to the point of accepting that he wouldn’t be able to cut the deficit like he had originally wanted to, Dante considers Reagan to not be conservative.

There’s more, of course, but it amounts to a lot of screeching about how everyone who calls Reagan a conservative is misinformed or confused. In its own words, “selective memory or cognitive dissonance.”

Of course, by insisting that its private definition of conservative is the only valid measure of the word, you’ll never get anywhere with Dante.

For the record, Reagan was not perfect. In fact, I was often disappointed during his administration because I was hoping for so much more. But in the real world, you do what you can with what you have. Reagan was faced with an economy choked with inflation, high interest, recession, and unemployment. To fix it, he had to fight with a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a media that absolutely hated him and wanted to destroy him. That last is not hyperbole, the media wanted desperately to destroy Reagan. They started calling him “the Teflon president” because they failed.

And Reagan had 3 top priorities when he was elected: fix the economy, cut the deficit, and build up the military. The economy and the military were both in such bad shape that Reagan knew he couldn’t accomplish those two goals while still cutting the deficit, so he gave up that goal to win the other two.

The Beirut bombing and our leaving was bad, but it’s barely more than a footnote in comparison to what Reagan actually accomplished. When you realize that Reagan essentially won the Cold War while correcting our economy, both herculean tasks, then you realize how petty it is to find fault with him. He was a man and no god, but I reckon he did about as well as any man could have done under the circumstances.

I don’t get responding to the likes of Dante. He is going nowhere and makes no argument for his point except disrespecting Reagan. Ok, so you didn’t think Reagan was a conservative. No one cares what you think and no one cares for whom or if you will vote. Your entire comment is of no value or interest. You have two choices this Nov. Romney or Obama, except for you maybe a third, and that is to not vote. We all agree that Romney is not our first choice but his decency and public service out weigh anything that you or any liberal puke can throw at him. Obama has nothing similar to offer, has lied almost constantly about some of the most important issues facing our nation and should be defeated. For the rest of you who constantly knock Romney grow up! That’s what you do during the primary. Crying now is nothing but being childish and bratty.

This, now read with some irony (and chagrin), is still up on Mitt Romney’s campaign site:

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.

It’s too late to discuss the finer points of what would make a good or great president because we are now presented with only two candidates. You must choose one (or stay home, in which case, STFU). Do you choose Obama who has proven that he wants to tear down the remainder of what was once a great country or do you choose a guy (while he may not be everyone’s ideal or even close to it) you can be pretty damned sure whose goal isn’t total destuction of our economy and our country. It’s really that simple. One or the other. Which one will you choose?

So, when Ron Paul doesn’t win, and your “principled” vote effectively counts as two for Obaka, where do your principles stand?

According to Dante, his “principles” can afford us another four years of the Alinsky disciple intrenching himself in the WH.

Real nice set of “principles” you have there, Mr. Marx. It’s you, and your kind, who are no different from the Obamas of the world. You have no concern for the direction of the nation, only for being perceived as doing the right thing in your own definition.

Standing in front of a communist tank at a demonstration is principle. Standing in front of a communist tank on a battlefield is suicide.

but he is perfectly comfortable with big government, and seems to have no philosophical underpinnings: certainly not conservative ones – constitutionalism, limited government, originalist philosophy – nor any of the kind that help meaningful policies weather the storms of political opposition.

Some of this is silly, groundless and almost absurd. I would only agree that Romney needs to work on his messaging and consistency. If anything, his campaign has been lax in articulating Romney’s principled approach which stands in great contrast to the Presidents divisive class-warfare, neighbor-against-neighbor, confiscatory taxation, overly intrusive big government approach. The latter has utterly failed us. The former gives us hope.

If you are looking for Reagan, be prepared to be disappointed. That person is not Romney, nor is he on the horizon. However, I do believe that Romney will surprise people as to what he will get done as President. Mostly because people continue to blather baseless thoughts, supposition and unsubstantiated divination without looking at what he is capable of.

Mr Romney’s history is that of a person who delivers largely on the demands of the people he has served. Whether it was growing a business and in the process helping people grow their dreams or as governor delivering what the people of his state wanted. Therein lies the hope he will deliver what we as a people want- because it is fairly evident that is not being done by this administration.

The sure-footed road to victory is achieved one step at a time, not in leaps and bounds. Right now, I am ready to walk with Mr. Romney. Because on the current path we will walk into the precipice.

I’m actually with you on that. But, where I disagree with you is in the idea that the parties are the same. They really aren’t. I’m a historian by trade, so I tend to look at the big picture (maybe a little too much). Mitt Romney to me is the last of a dying breed of Republican that accepts the liberal premise. We’re going through a transition as a nation, this happened in the 1930s, 1860, 1830s, 1800. Romney isn’t that bad of a transition to the Ryans, West, Rands, etc (Yes I know those guys are different, but on a larger level they’re not). I actually think he sees what’s happening and is trying to figure out what to do, which is why he’s not responding so quickly.

Maybe I’m wishcasting on Romney, but I don’t think so. He’s the type of guy who sees things before others do, that’s why he founded a company as successful as Bain. He’s been using Ryan’s talking points for awhile now. The big transition you’re talking about is going to take time. It took a long time to get here, it’s going to take some time to get back.

I’m actually with you on that. But, where I disagree with you is in the idea that the parties are the same. They really aren’t. I’m a historian by trade, so I tend to look at the big picture (maybe a little too much). Mitt Romney to me is the last of a dying breed of Republican that accepts the liberal premise. We’re going through a transition as a nation, this happened in the 1930s, 1860, 1830s, 1800. Romney isn’t that bad of a transition to the Ryans, West, Rands, etc (Yes I know those guys are different, but on a larger level they’re not). I actually think he sees what’s happening and is trying to figure out what to do, which is why he’s not responding so quickly.

Maybe I’m wishcasting on Romney, but I don’t think so. He’s the type of guy who sees things before others do, that’s why he founded a company as successful as Bain. He’s been using Ryan’s talking points for awhile now. The big transition you’re talking about is going to take time. It took a long time to get here, it’s going to take some time to get back.

cpaulus on July 10, 2012 at 12:46 AM

And if you are a historian, you should reexamine the Whigs and Lincoln and not accept the cultish propaganda your schools and government have fed you. Big government, centralized government – and the root of today’s problems, fiat money with a central bank – can be found there, and it was with purpose. Lincoln is no hero of the republic.

You have two choices this Nov. Romney or Obama, except for you maybe a third, and that is to not vote. We all agree that Romney is not our first choice but his decency and public service out weigh anything that you or any liberal puke can throw at him. Obama has nothing similar to offer, has lied almost constantly about some of the most important issues facing our nation and should be defeated. For the rest of you who constantly knock Romney grow up! That’s what you do during the primary. Crying now is nothing but being childish and bratty.

inspectorudy on July 10, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Now that’s so naive it’s funny instead of sad. You are the problem.

So, when Ron Paul doesn’t win, and your “principled” vote effectively counts as two for Obaka, where do your principles stand?

According to Dante, his “principles” can afford us another four years of the Alinsky disciple intrenching himself in the WH.

Real nice set of “principles” you have there, Mr. Marx. It’s you, and your kind, who are no different from the Obamas of the world. You have no concern for the direction of the nation, only for being perceived as doing the right thing in your own definition.

Standing in front of a communist tank at a demonstration is principle. Standing in front of a communist tank on a battlefield is suicide.

PXCharon on July 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM

Another one who is the problem and who is responsible for the mess the republic is in. But what else can be expected when one’s mind is shackled and can only offer logical fallacies.

Man, that’s a pretty long post saying not much.
There isn’t a single rational critique of Obama here.
I can’t see Romney standing any chance at all if it is expected that bits like this are meant to inspire.
‘Alinsky!’.
That doesn’t mean a damn thing outside of the right blog world.
You think merely proudly proclaiming how much you just hate hate hate Obama is sufficient to inspire more well reasoned folks to vote against him.
Conservatives need to give up the wild world-is-ending screeching. Your house is a mess.

Obama came out of nowhere in 2008 and the vast majority of Americans had no real idea as to what he was all about. So his message was all about tickling itchy ears because he knew what they wanted to hear. The left-wing propaganda machine was at full speed during the election because they now had one of their own that they could package and market. Now, after 3 1/2 years of sitting in this WH, the American people know exactly what Obama is all about and he isn’t what they bought into. Americans were swindled by a bait and switch. Fool us once – shame on you. Fool us twice – shame on us.

With Romney, we know exactly the type of person we are getting in the WH. He is the same person now as he always has been and I respect him for that. Whether I agree with him or not on certain policies, at least I know where he stands on the issue and I can believe what he says is how he feels. I do not believe Romney instinctively lies like Obama does.

Obama is walking (running?) us over the cliff. Romney is backing away but painfully slowly and there is little confidence that he will back away very far. I will vote for that for now but don’t believe for one second that I won’t drop him like a hot rock for the first true conservative who comes along.

Obama is walking (running?) us over the cliff. Romney is backing away but painfully slowly and there is little confidence that he will back away very far. I will vote for that for now but don’t believe for one second that I won’t drop him like a hot rock for the first true conservative who comes along.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Romney is going in the same direction as Obama and the same direction as every other presidential predecessor for almost the past 100 years, and arguably even more. Voting for him is not going to stop the problem, nor is it going to slow it. Voting for him and voting for Republicans while believing they’re going to do anything different IS the problem.